The harshest criticism of SGML's initial
development was that is was an "IBM thing" which
wasn't the case. It had an IBM editor who
leveraged the work on GML done at IBM, plus
development on other attempts to build
platform independent languages. It competed
directly with vendor-lockedin WYSIWYG and
that was the hardest problem to overcome.
If it is a good and workable idea, it may
bob to the surface several times before
it gets a lung full of air and starts
swimming. The hype surrounding it often is
what pushes it to the surface. In the long term,
it has to be useful and in most cases,
reasonably easy to use.
There is and has always been a competition
to be the editor because that person or
persons exercises tremendous control over
the results, and takes tremendous responsibility
toward getting the job done. If not chosen
well, it dies on the editor's desk.
Leadership is the most important issue, not employer.
That is why I suggest people re-read the Federalist
Papers. Not to adopt the philosophy or means,
but to understand how individuals can overcome
the mass mentality of populist rhetoric to
ensure that the system which emerges is workable.
I point out Ben Franklin as an example of means
that are often more subtle than a flaming zealot
can ever manage. A guy with a match and a loaded pipe
and can do quite a lot with a room full of arguing
hot heads.
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: David Megginson [mailto:david@megginson.com]
You'd think so, but then again, look at the developers who did the
actual prototypical (pre-REC) XML programming work -- Norbert Mikula,
Tim Bray, James Clark, David Megginson [me!], Peter Murray-Rust, Henry
Thompson, and a few others who'll justly be upset I've forgotten them,
all at that time independents or academic researchers. More
independents and academics did similar work for the other XML-related
standards as they came around.